|
|
|
|
|
|
by srean
15 days ago
|
|
|
> This is just one small corpus of Sanskrit linguistic traditions. That was just what her dissertation was on, not the sum total of her expertise. I was responding to your question about familiarity with history in addition to linguistics of Sanskrit. In any case it's expert vetted piece of research, not claims about far-fetchednesd by someone on the internet. Far fetchedness is hardly the the standard for wannabe scientific claims. If it was, there are many bridges that people can sell. If proof free speculations are your thing, speculate away. There's a large population of similar proof-free quacks and hacks one can join. I have nothing more to add. |
|
|
Funnily enough I’ve given enough examples and sources already in this thread. I think it’s better than “I know someone who knows” and “it’s expert vetted research”. I’ll stick to my theory about Sanskrit/Prakrit diglossia for now.
In the end we are two lay people arguing about a topic we’re not experts in and speculating how things would have been few millennia ago. It’s fine to have diverse perspectives! I’m not sure which quacks you deal with but I wish you all the best.
आ नो भद्राः क्रतवो यन्तु विश्वतः